Hurricane
Katrina Highlights Unacceptable Trade-Offs in
Pesticide Policy
(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2005) In the wake
of the hurricane catastrophe, it becomes painfully clear that the use
of the risk-benefit policy used by the U.S. EPA to allow chemical pesticides
in our society is failing to protect those in society most vulnerable
to harm.

The trade off between
the economic benefit of a pesticide and the harmful effects on human
health, wildlife, and the environment is not properly assessed nor is
it openly acknowledged. The widespread use of pesticides, promoted by
the EPA despite the availability of non-toxic alternatives, results
in widespread exposure of the general population. Had the EPA taken
steps to reduce the widescale use of pesticides and other toxic pollutants,
then people who survived the hurricane would not currently be as endangered
by the toxic water.

EPA registers and
reregisters extremely dangerous chemicals and is charged by the federal
government with the role of determining if a pesticide may cause unreasonable
harm to human health and the environment. The interpretation of “unreasonable”
fluctuates. According to EPA, sometimes it may be allowable that the
risk of cancer, for example, is one in a million (risking 280 people
nationwide for cancer from exposure to a single pesticide) and other
times it may be 1 in a 10,000. Numerous U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) reports find that the majority of pesticides in use have not been
fully tested and, if they have, still allow for varying degrees of harm
to society.

Yet, the harm to
society from pesticides is not equal. Pesticide exposure harms certain
population groups more than others, a fact that is not accounted for
in the registration and reregistration of pesticides. The risks inherent
in the mathematical risk calculations fail to take into account the
numerous circumstances and realities that make some populations more
vulnerable to pesticides than others.

Vulnerable populations
include children, farmworkers, their families and their communities,
the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, the chemically sensitive,
and the indigent. Those inflicted with poverty are the hardest hit with
poor nutrition and weakened immune systems, inadequate healthcare, lack
of information on pesticide hazards and non-toxic alternatives to pesticides,
and contaminated air and water from chemical manufacturing plants and
waste sites located in their communities. People of color and of hispanic
origin are disproportionately represented in these impoverished areas.

Wood preserving
factories are among the biggest contributors to the U.S. EPA's Superfund
sites (sites considered too toxic for habitation). These plants
manufacture and/or use some of the most toxic and deadly chemicals on
the market (see Poison
Poles) that can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain,
heart and organ damage, and are linked to serious human cancer clusters,
birth defects, genetic damage and other ill effects. With 31 wood preservative
plants, Louisiana is among a handful of states with the highest number.
13 former wood plants in Louisiana alone are designated as superfund
sites contaminated with these toxic substances.

Despite the known
toxic load in the Gulf region, particularly in Mississippi and Louisiana,
those communities and others like them across the country are not considered
in the risk assessment calculation that allows the use of dangerous
chemicals in society. Instead, when EPA analyzes health and environmental
data for chemical registration, it spreads the risk equally across the
population with inconsistent exceptions for children and farmworkers.
The benefit side of pesticides is more assumed than assessed and rarely
documented or made public.

Any public policy
touted as adequate must address and protect the most vulnerable members
in its society – otherwise the government policy is racist and
classist.

In order to protect
the most vulnerable people in our society, the EPA risk-benefit pesticide
registration system must be replaced by a more fair, equitable, and
just system. That system is a health-based approach that accounts for
the most vulnerable in society and protects against the worst-case scenario
of exposure. The standard embraced by the government should be the same
standard that most parents embrace for their children: a zero tolerance
for harm.

The
staff of Beyond Pesticides extends our heartfelt thoughts and well wishes
of support to each of its members, friends and partners in the areas
affected by the hurricane. We also thank our friends who are helping
with the relief efforts.